Unlisted Number

How well my family can relate to Bob Brigham's complaint about unwanted phone solicitations at dinner time (Letters, Jan. 24). Often we've said no to good causes only because we were annoyed by the interruption. But we found the perfect solution to stop such activity: Changing to an unlisted phone number. Now dinner hours are peaceful in our home. An unlisted number resulted in unforeseen additional benefits, too. Unexpected out-of-town company is a thing of the past, and our son got rid of many old girlfriends!

Time for an update on one of my all-time favorite fees — the fee that telecom companies charge to not provide you a service. That service is publishing your name in a phone book, which is undoubtedly a pricey endeavor for phone and cable companies. So if a customer asks that his or her name not be included in the directory, you'd think you'd be saving the telecom provider a little cash. That's one less entry in the database, for example, one less dollop of ink at the printer.

Once again our legislature has failed us in the unlisted number dispute ("Why your privacy still comes at a cost," Consumer Confidential, June 4). Yet there is an elegant and effective solution: You can have your number listed under any name you want, independent of any name used for phone billing purposes. For instance I once listed my phone under the name Edward O Thorp. I told my friends if they ever lose my number look it up under Thorp. When telephone sales people call asking for Thorp I tell them that he doesn't live here, click.

The other day a man called me (on my unlisted number) and said he worked for a women's morning talk show on the Lifetime channel called "The Balancing Act." He thought my newest novel might be a good fit for a "summer reading" segment. "Wow!" I thought, "Finally some serious publicity. I wonder how he heard about my book? I wonder how he got my number? Do I have time to lose 30 pounds before the taping?" He asked me if I was familiar with the show. "No." He said I could watch that day's episode on the website, and he told me about the two hosts, one lively, one smart.

California's four biggest telephone companies Tuesday couldn't convince a key legislative committee that they should be allowed to charge consumers for unlisted numbers. Members of the state Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee cast a bipartisan 5-0 vote for a bill by Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) that would prohibit traditional, wired phone systems from collecting fees to keep numbers out of phone books and directory assistance.

Time for an update on one of my all-time favorite fees — the fee that telecom companies charge to not provide you a service. That service is publishing your name in a phone book, which is undoubtedly a pricey endeavor for phone and cable companies. So if a customer asks that his or her name not be included in the directory, you'd think you'd be saving the telecom provider a little cash. That's one less entry in the database, for example, one less dollop of ink at the printer.

Re "Anti-Phone Soliciting Bill Survives," Aug. 22: Who counts, lobbyists or voters? State Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont) candidly admits it's a "tough call to go against friends." The lobbyists are "friends"? That explains everything. What about the voters, like me? I get several junk calls a day in spite of the fact that I have an unlisted number. Our representatives should seek friendship from us, the beleaguered and fed-up voters. Pass the anti-phone-soliciting legislation. Dennis G. Allard Santa Monica

I am a retired senior citizen who doesn't receive many phone calls. However, in the last few days Mayor Richard Riordan called me twice; Messrs. Antonio Villaraigosa, Joel Wachs and Steve Soboroff called too. True, they were computer-generated phone calls, but it was better than nothing. What am I going to do now that the election is over? I am wondering if they might take my calls, since I have some issues I would like to discuss with them. JERRY BARUCH Los Angeles Monday evening I returned from a three-day vacation to find 25 political campaign phone messages on my answering machine, and I have an unlisted number!

This Caller ID controversy ("Telephone Line With a Hook," July 15) has me a bit annoyed. If I wish to subscribe to a call-screening service and you feel your privacy is being violated or if you have an unlisted number you wish to keep private, I have a perfect solution for your problem. Just do not call me. Isn't that simple? Since you have my phone number and are able to call me, aren't I entitled to the same privilege of knowing your phone number? Also I certainly should have the opportunity to screen the phone calls I receive if I so desire.

Re: David Lazarus' consumer column "Time Warner and the silly fee," June 28: I agree that, whatever rational arguments may exist for telephone companies to charge for unlisted numbers, cable companies that have no cost at all for not doing something that they don't do in the first place is absurd. You can add Cox cable to the list, $1.25 a month for an unlisted number. Brian Donovan Newport Beach -- I am one of those customers who gets angry every month when I get my phone bill and see the $1.25 fee for telephone directory non-listing.

Re: David Lazarus' consumer column "Time Warner and the silly fee," June 28: I agree that, whatever rational arguments may exist for telephone companies to charge for unlisted numbers, cable companies that have no cost at all for not doing something that they don't do in the first place is absurd. You can add Cox cable to the list, $1.25 a month for an unlisted number. Brian Donovan Newport Beach -- I am one of those customers who gets angry every month when I get my phone bill and see the $1.25 fee for telephone directory non-listing.

For the second time in two years, the powerful telecommunications industry has blocked a consumer-oriented bill that would have barred companies from charging land-line customers for unlisted numbers. On Tuesday, state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) put on hold for this year a bill that would have eliminated monthly unlisted-number fees.

Once again our legislature has failed us in the unlisted number dispute ("Why your privacy still comes at a cost," Consumer Confidential, June 4). Yet there is an elegant and effective solution: You can have your number listed under any name you want, independent of any name used for phone billing purposes. For instance I once listed my phone under the name Edward O Thorp. I told my friends if they ever lose my number look it up under Thorp. When telephone sales people call asking for Thorp I tell them that he doesn't live here, click.

The cost of keeping your phone number private probably isn't going down any time soon. A bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) that would have eliminated phone-company fees for keeping numbers out of phone directories and unavailable through 411 directory assistance failed to pass in the Senate on Tuesday. "I won't bring it up again," she said Wednesday. "Nothing is going to change."

California's four biggest telephone companies Tuesday couldn't convince a key legislative committee that they should be allowed to charge consumers for unlisted numbers. Members of the state Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee cast a bipartisan 5-0 vote for a bill by Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) that would prohibit traditional, wired phone systems from collecting fees to keep numbers out of phone books and directory assistance.

Re "Anti-Phone Soliciting Bill Survives," Aug. 22: Who counts, lobbyists or voters? State Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont) candidly admits it's a "tough call to go against friends." The lobbyists are "friends"? That explains everything. What about the voters, like me? I get several junk calls a day in spite of the fact that I have an unlisted number. Our representatives should seek friendship from us, the beleaguered and fed-up voters. Pass the anti-phone-soliciting legislation. Dennis G. Allard Santa Monica

I am a retired senior citizen who doesn't receive many phone calls. However, in the last few days Mayor Richard Riordan called me twice; Messrs. Antonio Villaraigosa, Joel Wachs and Steve Soboroff called too. True, they were computer-generated phone calls, but it was better than nothing. What am I going to do now that the election is over? I am wondering if they might take my calls, since I have some issues I would like to discuss with them. JERRY BARUCH Los Angeles Monday evening I returned from a three-day vacation to find 25 political campaign phone messages on my answering machine, and I have an unlisted number!